Tricky sentence from (adapted) Livy LLPSI Cap XLIV

[pmda]

The following sentence from Orberg's adapted Livy is giving me some trouble:

Tarquinius' wife is egging him on to seize the throne (I think):

Di te Penates et patris imago et domus regia et in domo regale solium et nomen Tarquinium creat vocatque regem.

Orberg explains this as follows: di Penates et...et nomen T. te regem creat.

*** It seems to me like list of subjects but that there is another object besides te***

Ignore the above ***...***

The Penates (gods), [your] father's ghost, the palace and, within the palace [domo ] both the royal throne and the Tarquinian name made you [te] king.

I'm assuming that where a list of subjects occurs that the last, if it's singular, governs the number of the verb - creat.

Is there a clear way of telling whether regale qualifies domo or solium? I'm thinking it qualifies solium.

Do I have the above right?

[calvinist]

I think you've read it right, although I'm not sure why the verb is singular. regale, however, can only go with solium since 3rd declension adjectives have their ablatives in i, meaning regale is only nom/acc neuter: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regale#Latin

[bedwere]

The ablative singular for regalis, e would be regali. Hence, regale could only apply to solium.

[pmda]

Gratias vobis ago!

[Qimmik]

Allen & Greenough sec. 317c:

c. When a verb belongs to two or more subjects separately, it often agrees with one and is understood with the others:—
1. “ intercēdit M. Antōnius Q. Cassius tribūnī plēbis ” (B. C. 1.2) , Mark Antony and Quintus Cassius, tribunes of the people, interpose.
2. “hōc mihi et Peripatēticī et vetus Acadēmia concēdit ” (Acad. 2.113) , this both the Peripatetic philosophers and the Old Academy grant me.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ythp%3D317

creat is present tense.

[pmda]

Thanks Qimmik